Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Congress Set to Debate Iraq; Torricelli Drops Out of Senate Race

Aired October 05, 2002 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION with our journalists talking about the stories they covered this week. I'm Kate Snow.
You're heard the previews. Now get ready for the full Iraq debate to open in Congress.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the president and his team continue their war of words to support a policy that may mean a war against Iraq.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen. There's new information about breast cancer this week and new doubts about early warning.

DANA BASH, CNN CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: I'm Dana Bash. Political drama as Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey drops out of the election and Republicans cry foul.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays. Wall Street's wild ride and who's going to get the blame.

We'll talk about all these stories, and we'll have the president's radio address at the end of the hour. But first, a check on the stories making headlines from Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

MALVEAUX: Well, President Bush is sticking to his message. He is not only preaching to the U.S. but also many other countries, but especially Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the sake of our freedom, for the sake of peace, if the United Nations won't make the decision, if Saddam Hussein continues to lie and deceive, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm this man before he harms America and our friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: All right, now let's consider another possible scenario, that it is Saddam Hussein versus President Bush, that these two engage in a formal duel. They pick their weapons of choice, a neutral location and perhaps U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is the referee. They turn around, 10 paces, and then fire, a lot of Iraqi people and Americans are saved.

This may sound absolutely absurd, but this is exactly the proposition that Iraqi's vice president proposed this coming week. Clearly a lot of eyebrows raised and heads that were shaking on that one.

But if you had to look at this week and rate it, some people say, well, we would call it a draw, that the president did rather well, some big wins with United Nations, inspectors saying, "Yes, let's get a new resolution before the inspectors get back in." But also some losses and some concessions as well. What is that resolution going to look like? We still don't know whether or not we're going to get the kind of military force to back up the president when it comes to those allied forces.

So, clearly, both wins and losses for this week.

HAYS: Suzanne, I still think the funniest thing about that duel story is that Iraq has two vice presidents. And the question would be, as the second, which one would duel Dick Cheney?

(LAUGHTER)

That's really quite a thought to consider.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely.

HAYS: But seriously, as soon as Wall Street heard that the president would be giving a speech Monday night, they are so riveted. A lot riding on this speech, a lot riding on this war, where it takes us.

What do we expect to hear?

MALVEAUX: Well, this certainly isn't going to be, like, the speech. Some people have been asking about that, whether or not we're going to declare a war.

What we have been told by White House aides is do not especially expect some sort of new policy initiative, do not expect kind of new evidence, although they may release some evidence that was once declassified.

But this is really going to be the president laying out his case to the American people. First of all, Saddam Hussein being an evil man, capable of torture, rape, gassing his own people. He's going to talk about the role of the U.N., how important that is to get that tough resolution.

And really, it's meant to put pressure on Congress, because, as you know, it's going to be on the eve of those votes in the House and the Senate to get the kind of resolution that he wants to authorize using military force against Saddam Hussein.

But we are told it's going to be kind of a rallying point, very much like what we saw in November when he went before the American people talking about homeland security, outlining his particular position.

COHEN: Suzanne, was the president or the administration embarrassed this week when Ari Fleischer made the comments about sort of, in effect -- these weren't his words -- but, in effect, sort of welcoming an assassination attempt?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, the president, if you could use one of his words, to kind of "crawfish" out of it...

(LAUGHTER)

... that's something that we definitely saw Ari Fleisher doing after that briefing, really trying to do some damage control.

As you know, he was asked the cost of the war, what would it be. And he said, "Well, it would be less the cost of a bullet or of a one- way ticket from Saddam Hussein than the cost of a war." Let's take a listen to that sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has not made any decisions about military action and what military option he might pursue. And so, I think it's impossible to speculate.

I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, certainly, to be fair to Ari Fleisher, immediately afterwards he said, well, he was just being rhetorical, that he was making a rhetorical point, that certainly U.S. policy forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders by U.S. officials has not changed, that really the message was there was no one who is going to be crying over the loss of Saddam Hussein. But there were a lot of eyebrows that were raised about those comments.

And it really just kind of brings up the whole point, that euphemism that the administration uses, "regime change," you know, what does that really mean, that debate around that issue?

I want to also point out, too, what happened this week -- we're seeing kind of the strategy build in the White House. They're really kind of taking a lot of information at different tacts, but one thing they're doing is some classified information is becoming declassified. We saw this out of the Pentagon, where they were showing us for the first time this kind of gun-camera video taken from spy planes, U.S. spy planes, flying over the no-fly zones in Iraq and being fired upon by those Iraqi forces. This was once considered video that was too dangerous to show because it would put pilots in harm's way. Now they're saying, that's not a problem, that's not an issue; here's more evidence to show that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States now.

SNOW: You know what's interesting, Suzanne, is that that's obviously this effort to show that the U.S. sometimes comes under attack by Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was on the Hill a couple of weeks ago doing testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, and a congressman actually suggested that Rumsfeld should get that message out there, that U.S. planes come under attack all of the time from Iraq. And there was the video this week. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: Anyway, President Bush scored a major victory in his Iraq policy, obviously, when he won support from the powerful Democrats this week in the House of Representatives, especially House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. More on that when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION comes right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: We're going to take a listen now to a news conference going on in Montgomery County. Chief Charles Moose about to address the cameras there, talking about a string of shootings in Montgomery County, Maryland, also one, Thursday night, in Washington, D.C., that's now been linked to those shootings.

Let's take a listen as the chief addresses the cameras.

CHARLES MOOSE, CHIEF OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE: Is everybody in position?

We're going to going to cover two or three issues, take some questions, and then the next briefing will be at 1 o'clock.

We had a quiet night. No shooting incidents. Nothing connected to the situation evolved in Montgomery County. Certainly are very pleased about that. We remain on alert, remain in high anxiety. But people in the county are proceeding with business, with life.

As reported yesterday, county executive is engaged in the Taste of Bethesda. Many other activities are occurring. Think we got a little bit of rain overnight, but as we can see, blue skies, so people will be out doing the last of their yard work. And we feel like we want to encourage them to do that, that the community is safe for the moment.

We don't have anyone in custody, that's for sure. But we do want people to continue with life, continue to watch for things that are out of place. Strange behavior, report that.

I'm pleased to say that people continue to call our tip line, 240-777-2600. That has been very, very helpful. This morning we're reporting over 2,500 calls to the tip line. We've been able to filter through that for 600 credible tips that are being followed up and addressed by investigators.

Certainly, I want to remind you that a lot of the information is duplication. So out of the 2,500, to only say 600 doesn't mean that the other calls are worthless, it just means that there is duplication. These kind of things do occur, and I encourage you not to read anything into that. We still want to hear from people. We still want to talk to people. We have investigators asking those questions. And again, we have experienced various technology issues, but at this point we're not in that state. Things are working well. But again, anyone that calls that doesn't get through, the message still is, please call back. We still want to hear from you.

In terms of people working on this case, a question that has come up before, presently we have 100 Montgomery County Police investigators working various portions of this case. We're being assisted by 50 federal investigators. And again, people are working various components of the case.

In terms of ongoing incidents and developing incidents in the county, as I stated yesterday, when something does occur, we address that. But again, this case remains the highest priority on an investigator's case load.

Certainly the example being there was a bank robbery yesterday afternoon. Investigators working the shooting situation were notified of the bank robbery, dropped where they were on the shooting situation, responded to that, dealt with the facts of that case. When they got that to some point, then they returned to this case.

So everyone is remaining very flexible and very fluid. So when I say that we are focused on this case but also doing other investigations, it's no more complex than that. But this case remains the highest priority because certainly people have very high anxiety.

We still don't have anyone in custody. And we want to make sure that we follow every lead as quickly as possible.

At this point, I'd like to clarify some information, information that we worked all night to make accurate, to address in a way that didn't harm anyone.

We've had some reports of a suspect. Please understand that it is the policy of the Montgomery County Police Department to not name suspects. If we don't have enough to arrest someone, then we're really not given the right and liberty to tarnish someone's name, to tarnish someone's reputation.

But again, we have a lot of people working on this case. There's a lot of emotion and a lot of anxiety.

You may have heard, it may have been mentioned to you yesterday, that some information was released by the police department. It was inaccurate. It was wrong. We attempted to get that information back. We attempted to correct it, but we were unable to do so in all venues. So there was a media outlet that went with the story. A person that we classified as missing has been classified in some venues as a suspect in this situation. That is inaccurate. That is wrong. He is not a suspect. He is a missing person. If he is located, the instructions are to please check on his welfare, check on his well- being. And we would like for that law enforcement agency to notify our major crimes division.

At that point, we will determine if he wants to talk to us. We will determine if we can get an investigator to his location. But we have no authority, no authorization to arrest him or detain him. He is simply a missing person, and we want the agency to check on his welfare.

But again, it has been listed in some venues that he is a suspect, and that is inaccurate. So I certainly plead to all of the media people, we've seen situations in reason history where people have had their name inappropriately put out, they've had their lives altered tremendously, they've had their reputations damaged; in some cases, their reputations damaged beyond repair. So that is not the case in this situation, so your help in correcting that would be appreciated.

And certainly, any of you that want to talk off-line, individually with us about this matter, we'd be more than willing to do so, because we need your help in understanding and then also in assuring that we correct this as soon as possible and stop this matter from ballooning into anything more complex than it is.

We would like to be perfect as a police department, as law enforcement agencies, we would like to never make a mistake. But we are people, we did that. We tried to get it back, and we almost did, but there are a lot of law enforcement agencies and there are a lot of media people. And I think we've got in a situation where about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, not a lot of people were answering telephones.

The situation in Virginia is still one that I will not be talking about, in terms of specifics of that investigation. First and foremost, it'd be improper, as it is an ongoing investigation. And secondly, that is not in my jurisdiction, so I do not know the specifics of the case. But I would like to advise you that the vehicle that has, in our minds, some potential evidence, that vehicle is now at the ATF lab. Let me correct myself -- it is not actually at the lab. It is at a Montgomery County Police facility, a facility where we can -- we have a car, it's indoors, an area where we take vehicles to process them for evidence. That vehicle is at that location.

ATF forensics specialists, Montgomery County Police forensic specialists will be processing that car early this afternoon. To the best of my knowledge, they're scheduled to start that at 2:00 p.m.

Now, certainly, this case remains one of urgency, but the technicians, in order to do their job properly, we wanted to them to get some rest, we wanted them to make sure that they were in good enough condition to do the work. So we sent them home, scheduled this work to start at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. And certainly, we will do that with a sense of urgency, but we're also making every effort to do it correctly.

So we're examining that, and if there's any information -- and there will be information -- then the status of that information will be released as soon as it is appropriate per the investigation.

At this point, I will take any questions.

QUESTION: Could you just clarify which vehicle? Because a lot of people are still focused on the box truck. So could you explain which vehicle you're talking about?

MOOSE: OK. Yes, I'm sorry, I wanted to explain the vehicle that I'm talking about that we have at our facility. The lady that was shot in Arlington had a car. She was outside a car.

QUESTION: Fredericksburg...

MOOSE: Did I say Virginia?

All right, pardon me. The shooting in Virginia, in Fredericksburg, the lady was outside of an automobile. We are convinced, or we certainly strongly think, there are possible evidentiary items in that vehicle. Those are the things that we're processing.

I think it was a very thoughtful and deliberate decision by ATF. Last night, obviously darkness started to set in. They felt it was inappropriate to try to process it with artificial light there on the parking lot. They did all of the drawings, some laser-assisted drawings, did everything that they could on the ground there.

And then, to be absolutely thorough, the car was loaded up, put in a container, deliberately (ph) driven to our location here in Montgomery County so that the investigators could thoroughly go through it, starting at 2 o'clock today.

You know, clearly we're looking to see if there are bullets, fragments, other things that may tell us if there's any connection between that shooting, the shootings here in Montgomery County, the shooting in Washington, D.C.

And I apologize, I almost made some assumptions that maybe you knew exactly what I was talking about. So does that clarify that issue?

QUESTION: Just to be clear, is it the shooting victim's vehicle?

MOOSE: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) shooting in Arlington that you once alluded to that's now part of this investigation?

MOOSE: There was no shooting in Arlington. I'd love to see the tape to see why I could make that kind of faux pas. But nothing in Arlington with regards to any shooting. My apologies to Arlington.

QUESTION: Going back to the missing profile, the FBI, I guess, is going to be briefing you today. Have you received any briefing yet? What kind of profile are you using right now?

MOOSE: At this point, we are continuing to provide information to the FBI. We have no psychological profile. They indicated to us that they understand the magnitude and the priority of this, but they also want to be deliberate and they want to be careful and they want to be thorough.

They will provide us with that profile when they are confident that they have processed it in a way that they are comfortable with. And they are also doing that in an expeditious fashion, so if you can visualize both being deliberate but also doing it as fast as they can.

That's the status of that psychological profile. I don't have anything to report on the status of the geography profile.

QUESTION: Chief, getting back to the missing person, why do police want to question him?

MOOSE: Clearly he is a missing person that was brought to our attention by the people in the community. They may have some concerns about guns, his state of mind, his well-being.

We're continuing to do a lot of different things as the tips comes in, as information comes in. We're trying to follow-up everything that's presented to us. We don't want to make any assumptions. We don't want to paint any one as a bad person. We simply want to talk on him, check on his well-being, ask a series of questions and move on from there.

QUESTION: The last time he was seen was in North Carolina, is that right?

MOOSE: I have no information with regards to the last time was he seen. The last time he was seen is when his wife saw him. He's reported as a missing person. I have no information that he's in North Carolina. And again, that is some of the information that we're trying to correct.

QUESTION: Was there reported to be a gun missing along with him from his home?

MOOSE: At this point, the Montgomery County Police Department has him reported as a missing person. We want to talk to him.

QUESTION: Is there anything about the car being processed that makes it different from the other ones? What makes it so unique that you have to process this car now that you have in your police headquarters? Have you discovered the bullet or casings in Fredericksburg?

MOOSE: In terms of what makes this so different, I don't understand what that means. We have a car, we think it has some evidentiary value, and so we want to process it. We process every scene, and this is another scene that needs to be processed.

Obviously, until the technicians do their work, I have nothing to report about what's been found in the car or what has not been found in the car. That's why we're doing that work.

QUESTION: Any forensics results on the shell casing found in Fredericksburg or in the bullet fragments in the other two victims here in Montgomery County?

MOOSE: In terms of the car or any of the evidence from Virginia, none of that information has been processed. The technicians will start that work at 2 o'clock today.

QUESTION: Including the shell casing found yesterday?

MOOSE: All of the evidence in Virginia will be processed starting at 2 o'clock today. OK?

QUESTION: Can you tell us with the craft store, do you think it's just a coincidence that there have been two incidents involving the same chain? Or do you have any reason to believe that this may be some connection to the person who may be doing this?

MOOSE: In terms of your question about the craft store, my thoughts, again, I will not speculate. Our investigators are working. We want to look at the evidence, and we want that to drive where we go. We're not going to speculate. We're not going to make any assumptions.

Obviously, a lot of work is being done, but it would be inappropriate for me in this venue of a press conference to engage in that type of speculation.

QUESTION: Chief, can you talk to the state of mind -- can you speak to the state of mind of this missing person? You said that that's part of the reason why the person was concerned about him, his wife was concerned about him. Speak to the state of mind of this person.

MOOSE: I cannot speak to the state of mind of the missing person. I would encourage us all to recognize that, for the most part, we all keep fairly regular schedules, we stay in contact with those people that we love. And then, if there's a period where that doesn't happen, I would just have you process what that would mean about your state of mind.

They are concerned because they haven't heard or they haven't seen -- the person that they love is not keeping their regular schedule, is not staying in contact with them. Nothing more complex than that. It is something that we deal with almost every day, in terms of people in the community reporting a missing person.

Obviously, because of the totality of this situation, the misinformation that we put out rises this situation to a higher level. And certainly, as we talk to other law enforcement agencies, we would like to bring it to closure one way or another, because, again, history shows this kind of situation has a tendency to snowball.

That person's name, that person's reputation, we don't want that to snowball, we don't want to be part and party to that kind of thing. So the sooner we can find him, talk to him, close that, the better I would feel. Now, if it leads to something, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.

But I don't want anything out there -- you know, when it's described to me that it's on the front page of a major newspaper, that concerns me, because that is not accurate, that is not appropriate. That is not the problem of that media outlet, it's a problem for all of us. But it is very difficult sometimes to get that kind of thing back. And that's what we're trying to do, and that's what we're asking you to assist us in doing.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) announced last night that the D.C. shooting was connected with those in Maryland, when you had learned that from the forensics experts, what was your reaction? And the second question is, what are...

MOOSE: OK, I'll come back to you. Let me deal with the first question, and then -- in terms of the reaction when we confirmed, when Agent Prousshard (ph) explained to me that the work was done by ATF and it was a match, you know, then certainly two things come to mind.

Obviously the window of when this suspect, or suspects, willing to take action, the window expanded. Prior to that, the only shootings we had were during daylight hours. Clearly, the D.C. shooting was a darkness. So again, that expanded the window that we felt we needed to ramp up to make sure that we're trying to cross. So it really kind of turned it into a 24-hour window, as opposed to maybe a 12-hour window. And although we've always been concerned about the 12 hours of darkness, this confirmed that it was a larger window.

And then certainly the second thought, we had had a number of hours in our mind that the situation had stopped.

We always want to get this individual or individuals in custody, but you could also have that half thought that maybe they'd come to their senses and they had stopped. This showed us that, no, it was just a lull. There had been a number of hours, but they had also engaged in another attack.

And so certainly, some similar thoughts may occur if we confirm that the Virginia situation is connected, because that tells us that now a number of hours have passed and then there was another attack.

Now, it's too premature to say that until the science comes in, but that was the thought. That told me that there's ongoing attacks, a larger window, certainly even more concern.

The second question?

QUESTION: The second question is, given that there are those ongoing attacks, how can you then at the same time urge the public not to panic? MOOSE: I have to urge the public not to panic simply because we live in a democratic society. This is not the first person, not the first group of persons that have tried to harm Americans, that have tried to paralyze our nation.

The resilience that we've shown throughout our history is that no individual -- and quite frankly, no group of individuals -- are going to paralyze us and are going to keep us from enjoying life, living our lives to the fullest or counting our blessings as we have them.

So I certainly would hope that this situation wouldn't be the one to change the Americans deal with hardship and tragedy.

I don't want to be responsible for unduly exposing someone to harm, but I also live every day with the knowledge that life isn't guaranteed to any of us. And so when I talk to people I love, I try to remember that I need to tell them that that day, that minute, because I can't say I'm going to do it on their birthday.

So the same concept goes with this situation. I wish I could guarantee the safety of everyone in Montgomery County every day every minute. I've never fantasized that I can really do that. But I do know that if we're allowed to be paralyzed by this, then our whole sense of being, our whole sense of life is shut down, and the perpetrator or perpetrators have won.

So I say that in complete confidence, that we must go on. We must go to the Little League football game. We must continue to hug our kids. We must continue to educate them. Because, again, if we look at the big picture, the odds are many, many millions of us will live a full life, will see our kids grow up, will see our kids graduate from high school, get married, will become old people. The odds are clearly in our favor. They always have been. And then our resilience as Americans just makes that even more so. So we must carry on.

QUESTION: What are Montgomery County Police doing today? Are you all still searching for the white box truck?

MOOSE: In terms of the white box truck, we still are searching because I am not convinced that we, as a police department, as an law enforcement industry, I am not convinced that we've located the truck that we're looking for. And we will continue to look for that because we want to bring that part to closure.

QUESTION: Did any of the tips locate persons with high-powered rifles?

MOOSE: I am not at liberty to talk about the results of any of the tips or any of those types of things from the investigation. Thank you for your question, but we're just not going to engage in that.

QUESTION: Chief, tell us what you mean by "credible." You've got 600 credible leads that you're working on, you're following now. What do you mean by "credible"? MOOSE: What I mean by credible, in terms of the leads, clearly some of the leads say, "Go look at this, I saw this, I heard this, this is parked there, why don't you look at that." That is something we want to follow up.

Many of the leads suggest that we go to every gun store on the Eastern seaboard, on the East Coast, and get all of the names of all of the people that have brought guns for the last 20 years. I appreciate that advice. ATF appreciates that advice. But we don't classify that as a credible lead.

So again, I don't want to shut that down. There are a lot of smart people that live in this country, so we're going to listen to all of them, and we're going to listen to what they say. And maybe some of that's going to click and we're going to go, "We didn't think of that. Let's get that done."

And some of it is in the category that I said, "We can't do that. We've thought of that, but again, that is not a credible lead. We're listening. We'll process that." It moves into the category as a non- credible lead. Does that make sense?

QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, does "credible" mean that you've got some suspicion that you're going to find evidence? Does "credible" mean that you've got a potential suspect?

MOOSE: No, sir, "credible" means we're going to follow up on that. It means it is an area to go into that makes sense. And again, "A vehicle is parked. This vehicle is in a garage. This truck didn't make its delivery," we're going to follow up on that. "So and so didn't come to work yesterday. They usually drive a truck like this."

"Credible" means we're going to do some more work. It is not on a range of very good, very bad. Just means it goes in the box, and we're going to have somebody do that.

QUESTION: Could you comment on one other high-profile case you all are dealing with? Could you comment on the pipe bombing case and the Sigmund arrest, or the Sigmund charges?

MOOSE: At this point, I certainly didn't come prepared to this briefing to comment on that.

I will say that, again, the Montgomery County Police Department has been assisting MPD. We really consider that their case. We processed that as a missing person. We've certainly handed over everything to them. We've been in contact with them.

But in due respect to MPD and Chief Ramsey, in my mind that's an MPD case, and it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it.

QUESTION: Did you say that that information first came to you from a county resident, not from the North Carolina police?

MOOSE: The information on the missing person was information generated by the Montgomery County Police Department. QUESTION: It came from the wife, did it not? The wife filed a missing person's report?

SNOW: That's Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, briefing reporters this morning about a string of shootings Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., and one shooting in Washington this week.

He said at the start, "The community is safe for the moment." He said they're still encouraging people to call with tips. They've gotten about 600 credible tips. This afternoon they plan to look at a car from a parking lot in Fredericksburg, Virginia, which may or may not be linked to all of these shootings in Montgomery County.

We're going to take a break right now. SATURDAY EDITION returns right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

The decision by Democrat Robert Torricelli to drop his reelection campaign for Senate rocked the political world this week.

Welcome back.

Torricelli, dragged down by allegations of corruption, had plenty to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI (D), NEW JERSEY: I am a human being. And while I have not done the things that I have been accused of doing, I most certainly have made mistakes.

There will be those who've concluded that those mistakes bring justice this moment because there's a price to be paid. When did we become such an unforgiving people?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I have to tell you that on Monday morning I'm sitting in the press gallery of the Capitol. Somebody screams down the hall, another journalist, "There's a wire that says Senator Torricelli is dropping out," and my first reaction is, "There's no way." I couldn't believe that it was true, because his reputation -- anybody who knows him knows that he is a scrappy fighter, aggressive guy who would always be the last guy standing, never somebody who would bow out. It was really amazing. It was really amazing.

MALVEAUX: Was that his decision? Was that his decision, or was he pushed out?

BASH: Well, that's a good question. Apparently what happened is this: On Sunday morning, he was meeting with his top advisers. They had just gotten a new internal poll to show where he was. Apparently it was dismal. It had shown that he was about 30 points lower than he was, it was a 30-point swing lower than he was just four weeks ago when the Senate Ethics Committee admonished him. And he sat down with his advisers and he said, you know, "I'm going to lose."

And he realized that if he lost, it would probably lose the Democratic majority in the Senate, and he didn't want to do that.

HAYS: Is there any chance, now that the New Jersey Supreme Court has said that the Democrats do have the right to replace Torricelli, ironically with one of his sworn enemies almost, Frank Lautenberg, a former U.S. senator, three terms, that it will go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will have any different decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court?

BASH: Well, that's actually pending as we speak. The Republicans filed suit in the Supreme Court of the United States this week to say that the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that said that Frank Lautenberg, former senator, it's OK if he's on the ballot, they said, you know, "That is absolutely wrong. It disenfranchises a lot of voters in New Jersey. And the Supreme Court should hear the case."

The Supreme Court has not decided yet whether they will hear the case. We should hear soon.

SNOW: Kind of ironic that Lautenberg is getting into this ring. I mean, these guys don't like each other at all.

BASH: It's amazing. Kate, and you know...

HAYS: He would be a tough opponent, right?

BASH: He would be a tough opponent. The Democrats had a new internal poll showing him actually 11 points ahead of his Republican challenger, Doug Forrester.

But the story, the drama between Senator Torricelli and Senator Lautenberg is truly amazing. They had an absolute hateful relationship. It was really out in the public. They are each other's nemesis. And Senator Torricelli, we hear from his aides, really did not want Frank Lautenberg to come in and save the day after Senator Torricelli had to bow out for ethics reasons. It's kind of really Senator Torricelli's worst nightmare.

HAYS: Maybe someone's punishing him up there. Who knows?

(LAUGHTER)

Well, Democrats were quick to trade candidates. Investors should be so quick to cope with huge swings in the markets. We'll talk about that when SATURDAY EDITION comes back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYS: The stock market was surging up and tumbling down again this week. This is kind of a story we're getting too used to hearing, finishing near five-year lows. Many consumers are rattled and they're not so sure Washington has any answers.

And indeed, everywhere you look, there are definitely some positive signs that things are moving ahead and could be moving ahead. You know, if you listen to the market and if you -- the market is really telling you something. What it's telling you is, a lot of investors just don't believe it. They don't believe the recovery is solid. They're worried about the war in Iraq. And then throw in something else, the last thing everybody needed was the port shutdown out West. Just a lot of negatives.

COHEN: It's amazing. I mean, the stock market just -- everything sounds so bad. Now, it was in '96 Alan Greenspan said there's irrational exuberance. Is there irrational pessimism now? Are people more pessimistic than they really should be, by virtue of what the facts are in the economy?

HAYS: The economy is kind of giving off mixed signals. Let's start with that. We have every indication that consumer spending maybe isn't quite as red-hot as it was, but people are still spending. They're buying cars, they're buying homes. I think people are really worried about a little bit of a loss of momentum because everything isn't quite as strong.

And then, just typical, I mean, just like the universe giving us something to go along with this, was the employment report for the month of September, which we got on Friday. We saw the unemployment rate drop a little bit. That should be good news. But then we saw the economy lost about 43,000 jobs overall.

So even though one indicator was good, the worry is that this other indicator, the number of jobs, is telling you that the economy maybe just kind of flattened out in September, and maybe it has something to do with all the war talk.

BASH: You know, it's interesting that, you know, from a political standpoint, the Democrats have been hoping -- not hoping that the economy is bad, but hoping that the fact that the economy is bad, really resonates with voters.

And like you said, there's all of this war talk. And there is a fear that people are focused on war and not the economy. But clearly, like you're saying, the economy is so bad, that how could that not be an issue at the polls?

SNOW: They're even talking about, this week, Democrats -- there's some strategy maybe to focus people on their 401(k) reports that are coming out. I know mine is coming in the mail this week.

BASH: Right, we got ours yesterday.

SNOW: And Democrats would really like people to open those up and realize that things aren't so great, because they think that that would help them.

HAYS: I really wonder if this is going to stick on the Republicans, though. I mean, it may, because I think a lot of people are probably going to realize that, to whatever extent the worry about the war impacts the stock market, whatever extent it weighs on confidence, if you believe in the war and the need to fight it, you'll probably say that's just a cost that we have to bear.

It's interesting, though, when you think about confidence, there was a high-profile earnings warning. This is the kind of thing that really hit the market Friday morning. Thursday night, they had a -- EMC, it's a big data storage company. Technology spending is a big question. He said that the environment for tech spending is brutal. Now, granted, it's a tough sector. Nevertheless, he said that business confidence is being weighed down by uncertainty about the war, uncertainty about the economy, and that a lot of big companies now are delaying projects. They're delaying investment spending.

And this has been the key. The Federal Reserve has been saying all along, for this recovery to get traction -- consumers keep spending, that's kind of a given. That's what you're counting on. But businesses have to start spending too. They have to start investing. And now we have the kind of uncertainties that make people sit back for a while to see what happens.

SNOW: Suzanne, what's the White House saying about all this?

MALVEAUX: I was just going to ask a question about that West Coast dock shutdown actually. I mean, how big of an impact is that having on the economy?

Because, really, I mean, I know it's pretty early to say, but I know the White House is concerned about that. I mean, now aides are looking into the fact of perhaps appointing a board of inquiry, you know, under Taft-Hartley to see whether or not this is going to have a huge impact on the economy or whether or not they're even negotiating in good faith.

But, you know, it hasn't gotten to the point where he would actually say, OK, let's take an 80-day cooling period. But how serious is that?

HAYS: I think it could be serious if it lasts. People, number one, are assuming it won't. With Bush, they're assuming he got some good will from labor with the steel tariffs. He's not going to want to blow that. He probably doesn't want to intervene. People are waiting to see.

The longer it lasts, the more it snowballs. That's the issue here. We already saw an auto plant have to shut down out West because it didn't have parts -- just-in-time inventory technique. Manufacturers, to stay efficient, only have so much on hand. The longer it lasts, the more it hurts the economy.

SNOW: More on SATURDAY EDITION coming up. Also, the president's weekly radio address. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: That's our SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks for watching. Coming up, a news alert. But then, first, President Bush again talks about Iraq and the upcoming debate in Congress in his weekly radio address.

BUSH: Good morning.

This week, leaders of the Congress agreed on a strong bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein and to defend the peace. Now both the House and the Senate will have an important debate and an historic vote. Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt and Leader Lott did tremendous work in building bipartisan support on this vital issue.

The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again. Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups which are capable of, and willing to, deliver weapons of mass death.

And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator, who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed, and all the United Nations resolutions against this brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced.

The United States does not desire military conflict because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice.

We hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. Delay, indecision and inaction are not options for America because they could lead to massive and sudden horror.

Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met.

American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now before them, members of Congress will send a clear message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply with the demands of the world, and the time for that choice is limited.

Supporting this resolution will also show the resolve of the United States and will help spur the United Nations to act.

I urge Americans to call their members of Congress to make sure your voice is heard. The decision before Congress cannot be more consequential. I'm confident that members of both political parties will choose wisely.

Thank you for listening.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com




Senate Race>


Aired October 5, 2002 - 10:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATE SNOW, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Welcome to CNN's SATURDAY EDITION with our journalists talking about the stories they covered this week. I'm Kate Snow.
You're heard the previews. Now get ready for the full Iraq debate to open in Congress.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I'm Suzanne Malveaux in Kennebunkport, Maine, where the president and his team continue their war of words to support a policy that may mean a war against Iraq.

ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Elizabeth Cohen. There's new information about breast cancer this week and new doubts about early warning.

DANA BASH, CNN CAPITOL HILL PRODUCER: I'm Dana Bash. Political drama as Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey drops out of the election and Republicans cry foul.

KATHLEEN HAYS, CNN FINANCIAL NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And I'm Kathleen Hays. Wall Street's wild ride and who's going to get the blame.

We'll talk about all these stories, and we'll have the president's radio address at the end of the hour. But first, a check on the stories making headlines from Atlanta.

(NEWSBREAK)

MALVEAUX: Well, President Bush is sticking to his message. He is not only preaching to the U.S. but also many other countries, but especially Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For the sake of our freedom, for the sake of peace, if the United Nations won't make the decision, if Saddam Hussein continues to lie and deceive, the United States will lead a coalition to disarm this man before he harms America and our friends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: All right, now let's consider another possible scenario, that it is Saddam Hussein versus President Bush, that these two engage in a formal duel. They pick their weapons of choice, a neutral location and perhaps U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is the referee. They turn around, 10 paces, and then fire, a lot of Iraqi people and Americans are saved.

This may sound absolutely absurd, but this is exactly the proposition that Iraqi's vice president proposed this coming week. Clearly a lot of eyebrows raised and heads that were shaking on that one.

But if you had to look at this week and rate it, some people say, well, we would call it a draw, that the president did rather well, some big wins with United Nations, inspectors saying, "Yes, let's get a new resolution before the inspectors get back in." But also some losses and some concessions as well. What is that resolution going to look like? We still don't know whether or not we're going to get the kind of military force to back up the president when it comes to those allied forces.

So, clearly, both wins and losses for this week.

HAYS: Suzanne, I still think the funniest thing about that duel story is that Iraq has two vice presidents. And the question would be, as the second, which one would duel Dick Cheney?

(LAUGHTER)

That's really quite a thought to consider.

MALVEAUX: Absolutely.

HAYS: But seriously, as soon as Wall Street heard that the president would be giving a speech Monday night, they are so riveted. A lot riding on this speech, a lot riding on this war, where it takes us.

What do we expect to hear?

MALVEAUX: Well, this certainly isn't going to be, like, the speech. Some people have been asking about that, whether or not we're going to declare a war.

What we have been told by White House aides is do not especially expect some sort of new policy initiative, do not expect kind of new evidence, although they may release some evidence that was once declassified.

But this is really going to be the president laying out his case to the American people. First of all, Saddam Hussein being an evil man, capable of torture, rape, gassing his own people. He's going to talk about the role of the U.N., how important that is to get that tough resolution.

And really, it's meant to put pressure on Congress, because, as you know, it's going to be on the eve of those votes in the House and the Senate to get the kind of resolution that he wants to authorize using military force against Saddam Hussein.

But we are told it's going to be kind of a rallying point, very much like what we saw in November when he went before the American people talking about homeland security, outlining his particular position.

COHEN: Suzanne, was the president or the administration embarrassed this week when Ari Fleischer made the comments about sort of, in effect -- these weren't his words -- but, in effect, sort of welcoming an assassination attempt?

MALVEAUX: Well, you know, the president, if you could use one of his words, to kind of "crawfish" out of it...

(LAUGHTER)

... that's something that we definitely saw Ari Fleisher doing after that briefing, really trying to do some damage control.

As you know, he was asked the cost of the war, what would it be. And he said, "Well, it would be less the cost of a bullet or of a one- way ticket from Saddam Hussein than the cost of a war." Let's take a listen to that sound bite.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ARI FLEISHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has not made any decisions about military action and what military option he might pursue. And so, I think it's impossible to speculate.

I can only say that the cost of a one-way ticket is substantially less than that. The cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it on themselves, is substantially less than that. The cost of war is more than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, certainly, to be fair to Ari Fleisher, immediately afterwards he said, well, he was just being rhetorical, that he was making a rhetorical point, that certainly U.S. policy forbidding assassinations of foreign leaders by U.S. officials has not changed, that really the message was there was no one who is going to be crying over the loss of Saddam Hussein. But there were a lot of eyebrows that were raised about those comments.

And it really just kind of brings up the whole point, that euphemism that the administration uses, "regime change," you know, what does that really mean, that debate around that issue?

I want to also point out, too, what happened this week -- we're seeing kind of the strategy build in the White House. They're really kind of taking a lot of information at different tacts, but one thing they're doing is some classified information is becoming declassified. We saw this out of the Pentagon, where they were showing us for the first time this kind of gun-camera video taken from spy planes, U.S. spy planes, flying over the no-fly zones in Iraq and being fired upon by those Iraqi forces. This was once considered video that was too dangerous to show because it would put pilots in harm's way. Now they're saying, that's not a problem, that's not an issue; here's more evidence to show that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States now.

SNOW: You know what's interesting, Suzanne, is that that's obviously this effort to show that the U.S. sometimes comes under attack by Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld was on the Hill a couple of weeks ago doing testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, and a congressman actually suggested that Rumsfeld should get that message out there, that U.S. planes come under attack all of the time from Iraq. And there was the video this week. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: Anyway, President Bush scored a major victory in his Iraq policy, obviously, when he won support from the powerful Democrats this week in the House of Representatives, especially House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. More on that when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION comes right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: We're going to take a listen now to a news conference going on in Montgomery County. Chief Charles Moose about to address the cameras there, talking about a string of shootings in Montgomery County, Maryland, also one, Thursday night, in Washington, D.C., that's now been linked to those shootings.

Let's take a listen as the chief addresses the cameras.

CHARLES MOOSE, CHIEF OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE: Is everybody in position?

We're going to going to cover two or three issues, take some questions, and then the next briefing will be at 1 o'clock.

We had a quiet night. No shooting incidents. Nothing connected to the situation evolved in Montgomery County. Certainly are very pleased about that. We remain on alert, remain in high anxiety. But people in the county are proceeding with business, with life.

As reported yesterday, county executive is engaged in the Taste of Bethesda. Many other activities are occurring. Think we got a little bit of rain overnight, but as we can see, blue skies, so people will be out doing the last of their yard work. And we feel like we want to encourage them to do that, that the community is safe for the moment.

We don't have anyone in custody, that's for sure. But we do want people to continue with life, continue to watch for things that are out of place. Strange behavior, report that.

I'm pleased to say that people continue to call our tip line, 240-777-2600. That has been very, very helpful. This morning we're reporting over 2,500 calls to the tip line. We've been able to filter through that for 600 credible tips that are being followed up and addressed by investigators.

Certainly, I want to remind you that a lot of the information is duplication. So out of the 2,500, to only say 600 doesn't mean that the other calls are worthless, it just means that there is duplication. These kind of things do occur, and I encourage you not to read anything into that. We still want to hear from people. We still want to talk to people. We have investigators asking those questions. And again, we have experienced various technology issues, but at this point we're not in that state. Things are working well. But again, anyone that calls that doesn't get through, the message still is, please call back. We still want to hear from you.

In terms of people working on this case, a question that has come up before, presently we have 100 Montgomery County Police investigators working various portions of this case. We're being assisted by 50 federal investigators. And again, people are working various components of the case.

In terms of ongoing incidents and developing incidents in the county, as I stated yesterday, when something does occur, we address that. But again, this case remains the highest priority on an investigator's case load.

Certainly the example being there was a bank robbery yesterday afternoon. Investigators working the shooting situation were notified of the bank robbery, dropped where they were on the shooting situation, responded to that, dealt with the facts of that case. When they got that to some point, then they returned to this case.

So everyone is remaining very flexible and very fluid. So when I say that we are focused on this case but also doing other investigations, it's no more complex than that. But this case remains the highest priority because certainly people have very high anxiety.

We still don't have anyone in custody. And we want to make sure that we follow every lead as quickly as possible.

At this point, I'd like to clarify some information, information that we worked all night to make accurate, to address in a way that didn't harm anyone.

We've had some reports of a suspect. Please understand that it is the policy of the Montgomery County Police Department to not name suspects. If we don't have enough to arrest someone, then we're really not given the right and liberty to tarnish someone's name, to tarnish someone's reputation.

But again, we have a lot of people working on this case. There's a lot of emotion and a lot of anxiety.

You may have heard, it may have been mentioned to you yesterday, that some information was released by the police department. It was inaccurate. It was wrong. We attempted to get that information back. We attempted to correct it, but we were unable to do so in all venues. So there was a media outlet that went with the story. A person that we classified as missing has been classified in some venues as a suspect in this situation. That is inaccurate. That is wrong. He is not a suspect. He is a missing person. If he is located, the instructions are to please check on his welfare, check on his well- being. And we would like for that law enforcement agency to notify our major crimes division.

At that point, we will determine if he wants to talk to us. We will determine if we can get an investigator to his location. But we have no authority, no authorization to arrest him or detain him. He is simply a missing person, and we want the agency to check on his welfare.

But again, it has been listed in some venues that he is a suspect, and that is inaccurate. So I certainly plead to all of the media people, we've seen situations in reason history where people have had their name inappropriately put out, they've had their lives altered tremendously, they've had their reputations damaged; in some cases, their reputations damaged beyond repair. So that is not the case in this situation, so your help in correcting that would be appreciated.

And certainly, any of you that want to talk off-line, individually with us about this matter, we'd be more than willing to do so, because we need your help in understanding and then also in assuring that we correct this as soon as possible and stop this matter from ballooning into anything more complex than it is.

We would like to be perfect as a police department, as law enforcement agencies, we would like to never make a mistake. But we are people, we did that. We tried to get it back, and we almost did, but there are a lot of law enforcement agencies and there are a lot of media people. And I think we've got in a situation where about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, not a lot of people were answering telephones.

The situation in Virginia is still one that I will not be talking about, in terms of specifics of that investigation. First and foremost, it'd be improper, as it is an ongoing investigation. And secondly, that is not in my jurisdiction, so I do not know the specifics of the case. But I would like to advise you that the vehicle that has, in our minds, some potential evidence, that vehicle is now at the ATF lab. Let me correct myself -- it is not actually at the lab. It is at a Montgomery County Police facility, a facility where we can -- we have a car, it's indoors, an area where we take vehicles to process them for evidence. That vehicle is at that location.

ATF forensics specialists, Montgomery County Police forensic specialists will be processing that car early this afternoon. To the best of my knowledge, they're scheduled to start that at 2:00 p.m.

Now, certainly, this case remains one of urgency, but the technicians, in order to do their job properly, we wanted to them to get some rest, we wanted them to make sure that they were in good enough condition to do the work. So we sent them home, scheduled this work to start at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. And certainly, we will do that with a sense of urgency, but we're also making every effort to do it correctly.

So we're examining that, and if there's any information -- and there will be information -- then the status of that information will be released as soon as it is appropriate per the investigation.

At this point, I will take any questions.

QUESTION: Could you just clarify which vehicle? Because a lot of people are still focused on the box truck. So could you explain which vehicle you're talking about?

MOOSE: OK. Yes, I'm sorry, I wanted to explain the vehicle that I'm talking about that we have at our facility. The lady that was shot in Arlington had a car. She was outside a car.

QUESTION: Fredericksburg...

MOOSE: Did I say Virginia?

All right, pardon me. The shooting in Virginia, in Fredericksburg, the lady was outside of an automobile. We are convinced, or we certainly strongly think, there are possible evidentiary items in that vehicle. Those are the things that we're processing.

I think it was a very thoughtful and deliberate decision by ATF. Last night, obviously darkness started to set in. They felt it was inappropriate to try to process it with artificial light there on the parking lot. They did all of the drawings, some laser-assisted drawings, did everything that they could on the ground there.

And then, to be absolutely thorough, the car was loaded up, put in a container, deliberately (ph) driven to our location here in Montgomery County so that the investigators could thoroughly go through it, starting at 2 o'clock today.

You know, clearly we're looking to see if there are bullets, fragments, other things that may tell us if there's any connection between that shooting, the shootings here in Montgomery County, the shooting in Washington, D.C.

And I apologize, I almost made some assumptions that maybe you knew exactly what I was talking about. So does that clarify that issue?

QUESTION: Just to be clear, is it the shooting victim's vehicle?

MOOSE: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) shooting in Arlington that you once alluded to that's now part of this investigation?

MOOSE: There was no shooting in Arlington. I'd love to see the tape to see why I could make that kind of faux pas. But nothing in Arlington with regards to any shooting. My apologies to Arlington.

QUESTION: Going back to the missing profile, the FBI, I guess, is going to be briefing you today. Have you received any briefing yet? What kind of profile are you using right now?

MOOSE: At this point, we are continuing to provide information to the FBI. We have no psychological profile. They indicated to us that they understand the magnitude and the priority of this, but they also want to be deliberate and they want to be careful and they want to be thorough.

They will provide us with that profile when they are confident that they have processed it in a way that they are comfortable with. And they are also doing that in an expeditious fashion, so if you can visualize both being deliberate but also doing it as fast as they can.

That's the status of that psychological profile. I don't have anything to report on the status of the geography profile.

QUESTION: Chief, getting back to the missing person, why do police want to question him?

MOOSE: Clearly he is a missing person that was brought to our attention by the people in the community. They may have some concerns about guns, his state of mind, his well-being.

We're continuing to do a lot of different things as the tips comes in, as information comes in. We're trying to follow-up everything that's presented to us. We don't want to make any assumptions. We don't want to paint any one as a bad person. We simply want to talk on him, check on his well-being, ask a series of questions and move on from there.

QUESTION: The last time he was seen was in North Carolina, is that right?

MOOSE: I have no information with regards to the last time was he seen. The last time he was seen is when his wife saw him. He's reported as a missing person. I have no information that he's in North Carolina. And again, that is some of the information that we're trying to correct.

QUESTION: Was there reported to be a gun missing along with him from his home?

MOOSE: At this point, the Montgomery County Police Department has him reported as a missing person. We want to talk to him.

QUESTION: Is there anything about the car being processed that makes it different from the other ones? What makes it so unique that you have to process this car now that you have in your police headquarters? Have you discovered the bullet or casings in Fredericksburg?

MOOSE: In terms of what makes this so different, I don't understand what that means. We have a car, we think it has some evidentiary value, and so we want to process it. We process every scene, and this is another scene that needs to be processed.

Obviously, until the technicians do their work, I have nothing to report about what's been found in the car or what has not been found in the car. That's why we're doing that work.

QUESTION: Any forensics results on the shell casing found in Fredericksburg or in the bullet fragments in the other two victims here in Montgomery County?

MOOSE: In terms of the car or any of the evidence from Virginia, none of that information has been processed. The technicians will start that work at 2 o'clock today.

QUESTION: Including the shell casing found yesterday?

MOOSE: All of the evidence in Virginia will be processed starting at 2 o'clock today. OK?

QUESTION: Can you tell us with the craft store, do you think it's just a coincidence that there have been two incidents involving the same chain? Or do you have any reason to believe that this may be some connection to the person who may be doing this?

MOOSE: In terms of your question about the craft store, my thoughts, again, I will not speculate. Our investigators are working. We want to look at the evidence, and we want that to drive where we go. We're not going to speculate. We're not going to make any assumptions.

Obviously, a lot of work is being done, but it would be inappropriate for me in this venue of a press conference to engage in that type of speculation.

QUESTION: Chief, can you talk to the state of mind -- can you speak to the state of mind of this missing person? You said that that's part of the reason why the person was concerned about him, his wife was concerned about him. Speak to the state of mind of this person.

MOOSE: I cannot speak to the state of mind of the missing person. I would encourage us all to recognize that, for the most part, we all keep fairly regular schedules, we stay in contact with those people that we love. And then, if there's a period where that doesn't happen, I would just have you process what that would mean about your state of mind.

They are concerned because they haven't heard or they haven't seen -- the person that they love is not keeping their regular schedule, is not staying in contact with them. Nothing more complex than that. It is something that we deal with almost every day, in terms of people in the community reporting a missing person.

Obviously, because of the totality of this situation, the misinformation that we put out rises this situation to a higher level. And certainly, as we talk to other law enforcement agencies, we would like to bring it to closure one way or another, because, again, history shows this kind of situation has a tendency to snowball.

That person's name, that person's reputation, we don't want that to snowball, we don't want to be part and party to that kind of thing. So the sooner we can find him, talk to him, close that, the better I would feel. Now, if it leads to something, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.

But I don't want anything out there -- you know, when it's described to me that it's on the front page of a major newspaper, that concerns me, because that is not accurate, that is not appropriate. That is not the problem of that media outlet, it's a problem for all of us. But it is very difficult sometimes to get that kind of thing back. And that's what we're trying to do, and that's what we're asking you to assist us in doing.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) announced last night that the D.C. shooting was connected with those in Maryland, when you had learned that from the forensics experts, what was your reaction? And the second question is, what are...

MOOSE: OK, I'll come back to you. Let me deal with the first question, and then -- in terms of the reaction when we confirmed, when Agent Prousshard (ph) explained to me that the work was done by ATF and it was a match, you know, then certainly two things come to mind.

Obviously the window of when this suspect, or suspects, willing to take action, the window expanded. Prior to that, the only shootings we had were during daylight hours. Clearly, the D.C. shooting was a darkness. So again, that expanded the window that we felt we needed to ramp up to make sure that we're trying to cross. So it really kind of turned it into a 24-hour window, as opposed to maybe a 12-hour window. And although we've always been concerned about the 12 hours of darkness, this confirmed that it was a larger window.

And then certainly the second thought, we had had a number of hours in our mind that the situation had stopped.

We always want to get this individual or individuals in custody, but you could also have that half thought that maybe they'd come to their senses and they had stopped. This showed us that, no, it was just a lull. There had been a number of hours, but they had also engaged in another attack.

And so certainly, some similar thoughts may occur if we confirm that the Virginia situation is connected, because that tells us that now a number of hours have passed and then there was another attack.

Now, it's too premature to say that until the science comes in, but that was the thought. That told me that there's ongoing attacks, a larger window, certainly even more concern.

The second question?

QUESTION: The second question is, given that there are those ongoing attacks, how can you then at the same time urge the public not to panic? MOOSE: I have to urge the public not to panic simply because we live in a democratic society. This is not the first person, not the first group of persons that have tried to harm Americans, that have tried to paralyze our nation.

The resilience that we've shown throughout our history is that no individual -- and quite frankly, no group of individuals -- are going to paralyze us and are going to keep us from enjoying life, living our lives to the fullest or counting our blessings as we have them.

So I certainly would hope that this situation wouldn't be the one to change the Americans deal with hardship and tragedy.

I don't want to be responsible for unduly exposing someone to harm, but I also live every day with the knowledge that life isn't guaranteed to any of us. And so when I talk to people I love, I try to remember that I need to tell them that that day, that minute, because I can't say I'm going to do it on their birthday.

So the same concept goes with this situation. I wish I could guarantee the safety of everyone in Montgomery County every day every minute. I've never fantasized that I can really do that. But I do know that if we're allowed to be paralyzed by this, then our whole sense of being, our whole sense of life is shut down, and the perpetrator or perpetrators have won.

So I say that in complete confidence, that we must go on. We must go to the Little League football game. We must continue to hug our kids. We must continue to educate them. Because, again, if we look at the big picture, the odds are many, many millions of us will live a full life, will see our kids grow up, will see our kids graduate from high school, get married, will become old people. The odds are clearly in our favor. They always have been. And then our resilience as Americans just makes that even more so. So we must carry on.

QUESTION: What are Montgomery County Police doing today? Are you all still searching for the white box truck?

MOOSE: In terms of the white box truck, we still are searching because I am not convinced that we, as a police department, as an law enforcement industry, I am not convinced that we've located the truck that we're looking for. And we will continue to look for that because we want to bring that part to closure.

QUESTION: Did any of the tips locate persons with high-powered rifles?

MOOSE: I am not at liberty to talk about the results of any of the tips or any of those types of things from the investigation. Thank you for your question, but we're just not going to engage in that.

QUESTION: Chief, tell us what you mean by "credible." You've got 600 credible leads that you're working on, you're following now. What do you mean by "credible"? MOOSE: What I mean by credible, in terms of the leads, clearly some of the leads say, "Go look at this, I saw this, I heard this, this is parked there, why don't you look at that." That is something we want to follow up.

Many of the leads suggest that we go to every gun store on the Eastern seaboard, on the East Coast, and get all of the names of all of the people that have brought guns for the last 20 years. I appreciate that advice. ATF appreciates that advice. But we don't classify that as a credible lead.

So again, I don't want to shut that down. There are a lot of smart people that live in this country, so we're going to listen to all of them, and we're going to listen to what they say. And maybe some of that's going to click and we're going to go, "We didn't think of that. Let's get that done."

And some of it is in the category that I said, "We can't do that. We've thought of that, but again, that is not a credible lead. We're listening. We'll process that." It moves into the category as a non- credible lead. Does that make sense?

QUESTION: Yes, but I mean, does "credible" mean that you've got some suspicion that you're going to find evidence? Does "credible" mean that you've got a potential suspect?

MOOSE: No, sir, "credible" means we're going to follow up on that. It means it is an area to go into that makes sense. And again, "A vehicle is parked. This vehicle is in a garage. This truck didn't make its delivery," we're going to follow up on that. "So and so didn't come to work yesterday. They usually drive a truck like this."

"Credible" means we're going to do some more work. It is not on a range of very good, very bad. Just means it goes in the box, and we're going to have somebody do that.

QUESTION: Could you comment on one other high-profile case you all are dealing with? Could you comment on the pipe bombing case and the Sigmund arrest, or the Sigmund charges?

MOOSE: At this point, I certainly didn't come prepared to this briefing to comment on that.

I will say that, again, the Montgomery County Police Department has been assisting MPD. We really consider that their case. We processed that as a missing person. We've certainly handed over everything to them. We've been in contact with them.

But in due respect to MPD and Chief Ramsey, in my mind that's an MPD case, and it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it.

QUESTION: Did you say that that information first came to you from a county resident, not from the North Carolina police?

MOOSE: The information on the missing person was information generated by the Montgomery County Police Department. QUESTION: It came from the wife, did it not? The wife filed a missing person's report?

SNOW: That's Montgomery County Police Chief Charles Moose, briefing reporters this morning about a string of shootings Montgomery County, Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C., and one shooting in Washington this week.

He said at the start, "The community is safe for the moment." He said they're still encouraging people to call with tips. They've gotten about 600 credible tips. This afternoon they plan to look at a car from a parking lot in Fredericksburg, Virginia, which may or may not be linked to all of these shootings in Montgomery County.

We're going to take a break right now. SATURDAY EDITION returns right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Welcome back to SATURDAY EDITION.

The decision by Democrat Robert Torricelli to drop his reelection campaign for Senate rocked the political world this week.

Welcome back.

Torricelli, dragged down by allegations of corruption, had plenty to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ROBERT TORRICELLI (D), NEW JERSEY: I am a human being. And while I have not done the things that I have been accused of doing, I most certainly have made mistakes.

There will be those who've concluded that those mistakes bring justice this moment because there's a price to be paid. When did we become such an unforgiving people?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I have to tell you that on Monday morning I'm sitting in the press gallery of the Capitol. Somebody screams down the hall, another journalist, "There's a wire that says Senator Torricelli is dropping out," and my first reaction is, "There's no way." I couldn't believe that it was true, because his reputation -- anybody who knows him knows that he is a scrappy fighter, aggressive guy who would always be the last guy standing, never somebody who would bow out. It was really amazing. It was really amazing.

MALVEAUX: Was that his decision? Was that his decision, or was he pushed out?

BASH: Well, that's a good question. Apparently what happened is this: On Sunday morning, he was meeting with his top advisers. They had just gotten a new internal poll to show where he was. Apparently it was dismal. It had shown that he was about 30 points lower than he was, it was a 30-point swing lower than he was just four weeks ago when the Senate Ethics Committee admonished him. And he sat down with his advisers and he said, you know, "I'm going to lose."

And he realized that if he lost, it would probably lose the Democratic majority in the Senate, and he didn't want to do that.

HAYS: Is there any chance, now that the New Jersey Supreme Court has said that the Democrats do have the right to replace Torricelli, ironically with one of his sworn enemies almost, Frank Lautenberg, a former U.S. senator, three terms, that it will go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will have any different decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court?

BASH: Well, that's actually pending as we speak. The Republicans filed suit in the Supreme Court of the United States this week to say that the decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that said that Frank Lautenberg, former senator, it's OK if he's on the ballot, they said, you know, "That is absolutely wrong. It disenfranchises a lot of voters in New Jersey. And the Supreme Court should hear the case."

The Supreme Court has not decided yet whether they will hear the case. We should hear soon.

SNOW: Kind of ironic that Lautenberg is getting into this ring. I mean, these guys don't like each other at all.

BASH: It's amazing. Kate, and you know...

HAYS: He would be a tough opponent, right?

BASH: He would be a tough opponent. The Democrats had a new internal poll showing him actually 11 points ahead of his Republican challenger, Doug Forrester.

But the story, the drama between Senator Torricelli and Senator Lautenberg is truly amazing. They had an absolute hateful relationship. It was really out in the public. They are each other's nemesis. And Senator Torricelli, we hear from his aides, really did not want Frank Lautenberg to come in and save the day after Senator Torricelli had to bow out for ethics reasons. It's kind of really Senator Torricelli's worst nightmare.

HAYS: Maybe someone's punishing him up there. Who knows?

(LAUGHTER)

Well, Democrats were quick to trade candidates. Investors should be so quick to cope with huge swings in the markets. We'll talk about that when SATURDAY EDITION comes back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYS: The stock market was surging up and tumbling down again this week. This is kind of a story we're getting too used to hearing, finishing near five-year lows. Many consumers are rattled and they're not so sure Washington has any answers.

And indeed, everywhere you look, there are definitely some positive signs that things are moving ahead and could be moving ahead. You know, if you listen to the market and if you -- the market is really telling you something. What it's telling you is, a lot of investors just don't believe it. They don't believe the recovery is solid. They're worried about the war in Iraq. And then throw in something else, the last thing everybody needed was the port shutdown out West. Just a lot of negatives.

COHEN: It's amazing. I mean, the stock market just -- everything sounds so bad. Now, it was in '96 Alan Greenspan said there's irrational exuberance. Is there irrational pessimism now? Are people more pessimistic than they really should be, by virtue of what the facts are in the economy?

HAYS: The economy is kind of giving off mixed signals. Let's start with that. We have every indication that consumer spending maybe isn't quite as red-hot as it was, but people are still spending. They're buying cars, they're buying homes. I think people are really worried about a little bit of a loss of momentum because everything isn't quite as strong.

And then, just typical, I mean, just like the universe giving us something to go along with this, was the employment report for the month of September, which we got on Friday. We saw the unemployment rate drop a little bit. That should be good news. But then we saw the economy lost about 43,000 jobs overall.

So even though one indicator was good, the worry is that this other indicator, the number of jobs, is telling you that the economy maybe just kind of flattened out in September, and maybe it has something to do with all the war talk.

BASH: You know, it's interesting that, you know, from a political standpoint, the Democrats have been hoping -- not hoping that the economy is bad, but hoping that the fact that the economy is bad, really resonates with voters.

And like you said, there's all of this war talk. And there is a fear that people are focused on war and not the economy. But clearly, like you're saying, the economy is so bad, that how could that not be an issue at the polls?

SNOW: They're even talking about, this week, Democrats -- there's some strategy maybe to focus people on their 401(k) reports that are coming out. I know mine is coming in the mail this week.

BASH: Right, we got ours yesterday.

SNOW: And Democrats would really like people to open those up and realize that things aren't so great, because they think that that would help them.

HAYS: I really wonder if this is going to stick on the Republicans, though. I mean, it may, because I think a lot of people are probably going to realize that, to whatever extent the worry about the war impacts the stock market, whatever extent it weighs on confidence, if you believe in the war and the need to fight it, you'll probably say that's just a cost that we have to bear.

It's interesting, though, when you think about confidence, there was a high-profile earnings warning. This is the kind of thing that really hit the market Friday morning. Thursday night, they had a -- EMC, it's a big data storage company. Technology spending is a big question. He said that the environment for tech spending is brutal. Now, granted, it's a tough sector. Nevertheless, he said that business confidence is being weighed down by uncertainty about the war, uncertainty about the economy, and that a lot of big companies now are delaying projects. They're delaying investment spending.

And this has been the key. The Federal Reserve has been saying all along, for this recovery to get traction -- consumers keep spending, that's kind of a given. That's what you're counting on. But businesses have to start spending too. They have to start investing. And now we have the kind of uncertainties that make people sit back for a while to see what happens.

SNOW: Suzanne, what's the White House saying about all this?

MALVEAUX: I was just going to ask a question about that West Coast dock shutdown actually. I mean, how big of an impact is that having on the economy?

Because, really, I mean, I know it's pretty early to say, but I know the White House is concerned about that. I mean, now aides are looking into the fact of perhaps appointing a board of inquiry, you know, under Taft-Hartley to see whether or not this is going to have a huge impact on the economy or whether or not they're even negotiating in good faith.

But, you know, it hasn't gotten to the point where he would actually say, OK, let's take an 80-day cooling period. But how serious is that?

HAYS: I think it could be serious if it lasts. People, number one, are assuming it won't. With Bush, they're assuming he got some good will from labor with the steel tariffs. He's not going to want to blow that. He probably doesn't want to intervene. People are waiting to see.

The longer it lasts, the more it snowballs. That's the issue here. We already saw an auto plant have to shut down out West because it didn't have parts -- just-in-time inventory technique. Manufacturers, to stay efficient, only have so much on hand. The longer it lasts, the more it hurts the economy.

SNOW: More on SATURDAY EDITION coming up. Also, the president's weekly radio address. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SNOW: That's our SATURDAY EDITION. Thanks for watching. Coming up, a news alert. But then, first, President Bush again talks about Iraq and the upcoming debate in Congress in his weekly radio address.

BUSH: Good morning.

This week, leaders of the Congress agreed on a strong bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein and to defend the peace. Now both the House and the Senate will have an important debate and an historic vote. Speaker Hastert and Leader Gephardt and Leader Lott did tremendous work in building bipartisan support on this vital issue.

The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.

Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again. Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups which are capable of, and willing to, deliver weapons of mass death.

And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator, who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed, and all the United Nations resolutions against this brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced.

The United States does not desire military conflict because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice.

We hope that Iraq complies with the world's demands. If, however, the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable. Delay, indecision and inaction are not options for America because they could lead to massive and sudden horror.

Should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. They are the daily victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression, and they will be the first to benefit when the world's demands are met.

American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now before them, members of Congress will send a clear message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply with the demands of the world, and the time for that choice is limited.

Supporting this resolution will also show the resolve of the United States and will help spur the United Nations to act.

I urge Americans to call their members of Congress to make sure your voice is heard. The decision before Congress cannot be more consequential. I'm confident that members of both political parties will choose wisely.

Thank you for listening.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com




Senate Race>